USAF Tanker Competition saga

flateric

ACCESS: USAP
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
1 April 2006
Messages
10,701
Reaction score
6,567
Northrop-EADS wins U.S. Air Force tanker, beats Boeing
Feb. 29, 2008 • An international consortium led by U.S. giant Northrop Grumman and European conglomerate EADS has won the U.S. Air Force’s competition for the next fleet of new aerial refueling aircraft, officials announced late Feb. 29. The winners beat U.S. contracting behemoth Boeing, which had been expected in some circles to win the award. The much-awaited and delayed decision, which could set off a round of contracting bid protests, comes after a heated competition between the defense industry giants and that touched on everything from a previous Boeing tanker scandal to world trade subsidies and Buy American issues.

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 02/18/2008.

Surprise!
 
Should make it easier to sell the BWB as the tanker in the next round a decade or two in the future.
 
Sorry for being offtopic, but this has been heatedly discussed ever since it became public. Many americans are angry that the US is sending money and jobs overseas and they think the decision should be reversed and 767 made the winner. Some Europeans are jubilant that "their" aircraft won.
But I have rarely seen the Europeans being worried that they are actually subsidizing American military tankers this way and selling too cheaply. (Since Airbus receives subsidies.) That's one way to think of it and maybe could make some Americans happier too - the US air force is taking advantage of those sucker governments that want to build jets. ;) :-[
 
I have a hunch, that the last words still aren't spoken !
It's a little bit careless to believe in this contract, I think, until the
aircraft are delivered.
 
mz said:
But I have rarely seen the Europeans being worried that they are actually subsidizing American military tankers this way and selling too cheaply. (Since Airbus receives subsidies.) That's one way to think of it and maybe could make some Americans happier too - the US air force is taking advantage of those sucker governments that want to build jets. ;) :-[

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FrenchJobsLostByWinningTankerContract_197280-1.html

Not everyone associated with the EADS/Northrop-Grumman victory in the Air Force tanker contract is celebrating. The union representing workers at EADS Toulouse factories claims the deal will cost French jobs because of the consortium’s commitment to build an assembly plant for the tankers in Mobile, Ala. In 2006, EADS agreed to build a plant in China to win contracts there and the CFDT union claims that’s chipping away at the French workforce. British unions are hailing the contract saying it will secure thousands of jobs in plants that build major structures like wings. And, of course, Mobile couldn’t be happier about the decision.
 
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/USAF_Evaluation_Found_Boeing_Tanker_More_Capable_Survivable_For_Flight_Crews_999.html

Hmm
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a83gJ6Kzgr2c&refer=home

Boeing Wins Protest of Northrop Aerial-Tanker Award (Update2)

By Edmond Lococo and Gopal Ratnam
More Photos/Details

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. deserves another chance to bid on the $35 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-tanker contract won by rival Northrop Grumman Corp., a government agency said.

``Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman,'' the U.S. Government Accountability Office announced today in Washington. ``We therefore sustained Boeing's protest.''

Boeing appealed to the GAO after Northrop and partner European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. won the contract Feb. 29, snaring a program that had been Boeing's for more than half a century. Boeing claimed changes the Air Force made during the competition favored Northrop. The selection of Northrop was undermined June 12 when both companies confirmed the Air Force miscalculated operating costs of the competing aircraft.

``While the variance in costs is trivial, it points to a broader erosion in the government's rationale for picking the Northrop-EADS plane,'' Loren Thompson, an analyst at Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Virginia-based public policy research group, said in an e-mail before the announcement. ``The outcome of the competition was fairly close, as Boeing has argued in its filings, rather than a decisive win for the Northrop-EADS team as the Air Force asserts.''

Boeing shares have declined 11 percent since the decision, compared with a 12 percent drop in Northrop. Boeing rose $1.08 to $75.46 at 1:22 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange trading, while Northrop fell 33 cents to $70.76.
 
Ohhh no !! Not again a delay and especially rising costs !!

How long untill then a final decission ??

Deino
 
f26b8beb96fa9a1c76.jpg
 
mmmm, maybe this time Boeing will decide to bid a modified 777 ?
 
This was a major setback and is indicative of how much the Government procurement system is in disarray. Given the number of contract awards that have been successfully overturned on protest, you can bet that protesting will be standard operating procedure for defense procurement awards going forward. Using the CSAR-X competition as a model, this could take 12+ months to decide unless all parties agree to a split buy.
 
Problem is that there are not so many big contracts anymore, and the pressure to "stick to a decision" for decades to come (for good reason, like lowering recurring costs) effectively blocks any possibility to re-enter the fray once you are out. In the good old days, the military could tweak the specification on the stride w/o so much protests because everyone knew that they would have another chance in a few years (actually, they thought they had). So, either the military starts to do a very strict specification and stays there for all the duration of the competition, with a rigorous and transparent process, or protestations would be inescapable: it's survival. Since requirements often change, the way forward would be probably a return to the little-batch (relatively) policy of the 50s or a re-do of split production contracts. Costs would rise, but probably if you add up the cost of the delays, you'll probably go even.
 
doggedman said:
This was a major setback and is indicative of how much the Government procurement system is in disarray. Given the number of contract awards that have been successfully overturned on protest, you can bet that protesting will be standard operating procedure for defense procurement awards going forward. Using the CSAR-X competition as a model, this could take 12+ months to decide unless all parties agree to a split buy.


It's important to note that GAO did not take any position regarding the two aircraft. What GAO basically said was that AF did not follow its own rules or specifications in making its selection, improperly evaluated the two aircraft's life cycle costs to determine that NG had the lowest life cycle costs (Life cycle costs, though, was not the only factor in the decision to go with Airbus) when in fact Boeing did. AF has admitted this, BTW. Didn't keep Boeing informed during the analysis, ignored the fact that one of the bidders could not meet an essential requirement necessary for the award, etc.

What GAO told USAF to do was to go back and decide if their original solicitation meets their need. If so, USAF should go back and follow their own rules and evaluate proposals in the manner and how they said they would in the solicitation. If the original solicitation does not meet USAF needs, then issue a new solicitation that states what they really want. I suspect that if the latter course is taken, Boeing would bid a KC-777.


It's unlikely either party would agree to a split buy without a new competition (for one thing their costs would change), nor should they have to. This would also be a disastrous and expensive course for USAF that would take longer. In addition, a split buy without a new solicitation would not address the reasons why GAO overturned the award.
 
URL for GAO's complete (redacted) report.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf

Looks like there were more errors by USAF. For one, it seems the A330 is limited by flight-control software to a maximum speed of 610 km/h, less than the minimum speed specified by USAF for an "overrun" maneuver (whatever that means). Airbus/NG's first response was to tell the Air Force, "Well then, lower the requirement!", which didn't go over well. says GAO . But USAF then accepted the argument that the A330 would achieve the required speeds in a dive (I guess they'd stop measuring after it hits the ground).

As far as the KC-45 not demonstrating that all AF fixed wing a/c could be refueled by it, one of the a/c in question may be the V-22. It uses probe and drogue refueling unlike other AF fixed wings and there is apparently some interference issues with the A330's wake. In normal service a KC-130 would be used, but if the specification required that bidders be able to refuel all AF fixed wings, then the bidder has to meet the requirement. Note that the V-22 can be refueled by the KC-135, I don't know about the KC-10 offhand
 
Hot New
PENTAGON CHANCELD THE DEAL

Wat to hell ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/bs_nm/usa_airforce_tanker_decision_dc;_ylt=AhVmnq1NTBPKrzjhPMjxysh34T0D

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,564930,00.html
 
Michel Van said:
Hot New
PENTAGON CHANCELD THE DEAL

Wat to hell ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/bs_nm/usa_airforce_tanker_decision_dc;_ylt=AhVmnq1NTBPKrzjhPMjxysh34T0D

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,564930,00.html


The selection process and award was so flawed there was no way they could save it. This is probably the best solution for everyone.
 
KC-X competition cancelled for now

Kudos to those members that stroke the third choice in the poll.. ;D

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1039700220080910
 
Northrop-Grumman must be really pissed...Boeing just couldn't suck up the loss.People in Mobile must be really upset to.
 
I just hope that this time much more thought is taken into ensuring the contract and requirements are structured such so that only Boeing could possibly win.

KJ Lesnick
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
I just hope that this time much more thought is taken into ensuring the contract and requirements are structured such so that only Boeing could possibly win.

KJ Lesnick

So are you proposing the specs should be written to ensure Boeing wins? Ridiculous! What about the best capability being selected?

Regards,

Greg
 
Please explain why that is a good thing? If they can't provide the best capability fairly, they don't deserve to win!
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
So are you proposing the specs should be written to ensure Boeing wins?

Exactly

In that case, it is not necessary to re-issue an RFP...............
but the USAF will only get what Boeing is willing/able to propose/produce.
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
I just hope that this time much more thought is taken into ensuring the contract and requirements are structured such so that only Boeing could possibly win.

KJ Lesnick
If only ALL other countries would do the same and exclusively favor national products, that would be great. No doubt...
 
Is there any news in the continuing saga of Boeing versus Northrup-Grumman/EADS concerning the US Air Force tanker competition? Are they still waiting on the Obama Administration/US Air Force to release another RFP?

I know that there have been opinion/editorial pieces that have been published stating that Boeing should propose a tanker version of their new 787 "Dreamliner." KC-787 "Dreamtanker"?
 
Are they still waiting on the Obama Administration/US Air Force to release another RFP?

From what I understand, essentially yes (though it isn't quite that straight forward), though the ongoing posturing from both sides is ongoing. I think the latest from Boeing was to offer the USAF just about any airframe they wanted as a tanker...desperation. :D

Regards,

Greg
 
I used to be a proponent of the KC-787, but all of that program's delays are making me think twice. Right now I think the 777 would be the best choice for a tanker. Based on the KC-10 experience, I think a bigger airplane would be more useful (in spite of Boeing's argument that the 767 can fly from more airfields than the A-330.)

It would appear that the new tanker will still be called KC-42, regardless of which airframe is selected.
 
CFE said:
I used to be a proponent of the KC-787, but all of that program's delays are making me think twice. Right now I think the 777 would be the best choice for a tanker. Based on the KC-10 experience, I think a bigger airplane would be more useful (in spite of Boeing's argument that the 767 can fly from more airfields than the A-330.)

It would appear that the new tanker will still be called KC-42, regardless of which airframe is selected.

Actually, I believe that the A330 actually has a lower runway requirement than the KC-767. What Boeing was saying regarding airfields is that its aircraft could operate on more unmodified ramps and taxiways than the 330 derivative, and more could be parked on a given ramp space.

In this next go-round, although some speculated on a KC-787, that's unlikely for exactly the reasons you mentioned. in addition to the 787 being very new technology that isn't even in service, their performance so far on the program would make this a risky choice in the evaluation process. Also, since so much of it is outsourced, there are security regiments that would be more troublesome.

Boeing does have some flexibility here. If USAF again emphasizes minimum modification to existing fields, thy bid the 767 and offer the side benefit of more booms in the air. If USAF now pushes for max fuel/cargo capability, they offer the 777. It can carry more than the A330 but to my understanding requires less runway than the A330 when only carrying a load equivalent to the A330's

It'll be interesting...
 
Are any Airbus A330 MRTTs currently in service or are the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Air Force, Royal Saudi Air Force, and the United Arab Emirates Air Force still waiting for deliveries? Has Airbus done a good job of managing this program and will be able to make deliveries on time and on budget?
 
Model of Northrop Grumman KC-30 Advanced Tanker (designated the KC-45A by the United States Air Force) found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Northrup-Grumman-KC-30-Advanced-Tanker-Desktop-Model-/261111046441?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ccb6e6129
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqJ,!hoFBuwHSU2TBQdLl2tMiw~~60_12.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!hoFBuwHSU2TBQdLl2tMiw~~60_12.JPG
    65.4 KB · Views: 281
  • $T2eC16dHJHYE9nzpfITfBQdLl7k4lQ~~60_12.JPG
    $T2eC16dHJHYE9nzpfITfBQdLl7k4lQ~~60_12.JPG
    59.2 KB · Views: 278
  • $(KGrHqN,!pEFB)wEWzGZBQdLl-2yCQ~~60_12.JPG
    $(KGrHqN,!pEFB)wEWzGZBQdLl-2yCQ~~60_12.JPG
    39 KB · Views: 273
  • $(KGrHqJ,!o4F!JCSBYqdBQdLmEG1gQ~~60_12.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!o4F!JCSBYqdBQdLmEG1gQ~~60_12.JPG
    74.6 KB · Views: 268
  • $T2eC16RHJF0E9nmFSICIBQdLmJqg5!~~60_12.JPG
    $T2eC16RHJF0E9nmFSICIBQdLmJqg5!~~60_12.JPG
    84.3 KB · Views: 256
  • $T2eC16Z,!ykE9s7t)2GiBQdLmPGeww~~60_12.JPG
    $T2eC16Z,!ykE9s7t)2GiBQdLmPGeww~~60_12.JPG
    68.1 KB · Views: 18
Hi,

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a493824.pdf
 
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-12-04-Lockheed-Martin-and-Airbus-Sign-Memorandum-of-Agreement-on-Aerial-Refueling

Short version:
  • Exploring potential to provide A330/KC-45 capability to address shortfalls in US tanker capacity
  • Collaboration on a future survivable tanker
Not sure whether item 1 is a Hail Mary pass, or a more thoughtful strategy capitalizing on government-wide dissatisfaction with Boeing regarding its performance on the KC-46 program. May I remind the committee that the big old Airbus plant in Mobile, Alabama was originally configured to produce the KC-45.

As the great thinker Arte Johnson used to say, "verry interesting".
 
[Looked at opportunities] may range from ways to support critical near-term air-refueling needs, such as a fee-for-service structure to conceptualizing the tanker of the future.
[...]
"Airbus is an industry leader in the aerial refueling area, and Lockheed Martin is known for cutting-edge defensive technologies and capabilities," said Michele Evans, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. "This is a great opportunity for our two companies to combine our expertise – cooperating to develop world-class solutions for critical needs around the world."
 
Lockheed Martin LMXT for USAF Bridge Tanker program.

The LMXT is a strategic tanker tailored specifically for the U.S. Air Force, delivering critical capabilities to support automatic air-to-air refueling, interoperability for the Joint All Domain battlespace, enhanced defensive systems and more. Adding more fuel to the fight, the LMXT is a proven and mission-ready tanker ready to meet the U.S. Air Force Bridge Tanker requirements.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFTr53cer0

 
Airbus homework: More fuel offload at range* + outer wings pylons for datalink or sensors

¨Considering LM will take EMP level to Mil-Std 3023 (20db)

*it equals today that of the KC-46
 
Airbus homework: More fuel offload at range* + outer wings pylons for datalink or sensors

¨Considering LM will take EMP level to Mil-Std 3023 (20db)

*it equals today that of the KC-46
Seems the A330 based LMXT will carry 12t more of fuel than traditional MRTT.

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom